Utilization of sperm cryopreservation in patients with testicular cancer.

PURPOSE: We assessed factors that affect the utilization of sperm cryopreservation before 2021, when patients covered expenses, and the influence on quality of life. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2021, testicular cancer survivors (TCS) at our clinic completed a questionnaire, including EORTC QLQ-TC26, covering sperm cryopreservation, sociodemographic details, post-treatment births, and artificial insemination. RESULTS: After 5.7 ± 3.0 years, 279 participants (64%) responded to the questionnaire. Among them, 33% (91/279) of testicular cancer survivors chose sperm cryopreservation prior to treatment, with 11% (10/91) using it for insemination. Conversely, 2% (3/188) without cryopreservation reported unfulfilled desire to have children. Univariate analysis showed TCS with cryopreservation were younger (30.6 ± 7.1 (35 (21-59)) vs. 42.4 ± 10.9 (48 (22-81)) years; p = 0.001), had a lower BMI (24.2 ± 3.3 vs. 26.6 ± 4.6 kg/m2; p = 0.009) and a lower Charlson Score (> 3: 36% vs. 60%; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed older age (≥ 37 years: OR 13.1 (5.5-31.2), p < 0.001) and lower education (middle school or less: OR 3.3 (1.6-6.9), p = 0.001) as independent factors associated with not undergoing cryopreservation. Regarding quality of life, multivariate analysis identified a lower infertility anxiety score (OR 4.3 (2.0-9.0), p < 0.001) and higher age (≥ 44 years: OR 5.4 (2.6-11.3); p < 0.001) as predictors for the absence of prior cryopreservation. CONCLUSIONS: Age and education seem to impact the choice of undergoing paid sperm cryopreservation. Urologists should inform testicular cancer patients about costs and coverage. Importantly, the occurrence of unmet desires for parenthood is minimal among those who forego cryopreservation.

Identification of genomic drivers for the therapeutic response of Cabozantinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Cabozantinib (CAB) as monotherapy or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors is used for systemic treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, little is known about predictors of treatment response to CAB. For this reason, known genomic drivers were examined to identify potential predictors of treatment response with CAB. METHODS: Twenty mRCC patients receiving monotherapy (≥ first-line) with CAB were prospectively included. DNA was extracted from archived primary tumors or metastatic tissue. Targeted DNA sequencing was performed using a gene panel including 328 genes (QIAseq Targeted DNA V3 Panel, Qiagen). The variant evaluation was performed using Varsome. The endpoints were treatment-failure-free-survival (TFFS) to CAB. RESULTS: 26% of patients received systemic RCC treatment as the primary option. Six patients were treated with CAB in first-line (1L) and 12 patients in ≥ 2L. The median follow-up after initiation of systemic treatment was 26.7 months (mo). The PBRM1 (7 alleles), SETD2 (7 alleles), VHL (11 alleles), and CHEK2 (14 alleles) genes were most frequently altered. The median time to TFFS was 10.5 mo (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.2-14.7 mo). There was a longer treatment response to CAB in patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene (SETD2 alteration median TFFS not reached vs. no SETD2 alterations 8.4 mo (95% CI 5.2-11.6 mo); p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Pathogenic variant genes may indicate treatment response to systemic therapy in mRCC. Patients with alterations of the SETD2 gene show longer responses to CAB treatment.